JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This criminal revision is against the order dated 27.7.1983 passed by the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Lucknow, in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance to Smt. Mehrunnisa opposite party at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem, from 4.11.1977 the date on which the application for maintenance was moved. 2. Smt. Mehrunnisa opposite party was married to Ashfaq Ahmad Siddiqui revisionist in the year 1968. She was divorced in the month of October, 1977. After the divorce she filed petition for maintenance alleging that monthly income of Ashfaq Ahmad Siddiqui is Rs. 800/- per mensem and she may be awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- oer mensem. This application was contested by the revisionist. He pleaded in defence that he has ever been willing and ready to keep the petitioner with him but she refused to live with him without any just cause due to which he divorced her in the month of April, 1977 through a registered letter. He further pleaded that his total emoluments are Rs. 435/- per mensem and the petitioner herself is earning Rs. 200/- per mensem by doing sewing and stitching work. After taking evidence of the parties the learned Munsif Magistrate allowed the application awarded the maintenance from the date of the application at the aforesaid rate. 3. Against that order the revisionist first filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. He, however, got that revision dismissed as not pressed on 2.11.1983. After this he filed the present revision on 9.11.1983. The office report is that the revision is beyond time by 13 days. In this connection the revisionist moved an application under Section 5 Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 4. On 5.4.1987 arguments were heard in part. Today when the case was taken up for further arguments no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Shri U.D. Shukla learned counsel for the opposite party was present at the time of arguments. He was heard at length and with his help I went through the entire record of the lower Court. 5. Article 131 of the Indian Limitation Act requires that an application for revision should be moved within 90 days of the order. The impugned order is dated 27.7.1983. I he revision in this Court was filed on 9.11.83. It was, therefore, beyond 90 days. 5. Article 131 of the Indian Limitation Act requires that an application for revision should be moved within 90 days of the order. The impugned order is dated 27.7.1983. I he revision in this Court was filed on 9.11.83. It was, therefore, beyond 90 days. The office after giving usual deductions reported that the revision was beyond 13 days. In the application given under Section 5 Indian limitation Act the revisionist did not explain this delay satisfactorily. The only reason assigned by him to explain the delay is that he filed revision before the Sessions Judge and that revision remained pending there for some time. In view of Section 397 Cr.P.C. the revisionist could move an application for revision before the Sessions Judge. It cannot, therefore, be said that he moved an application before the Sessions Judge under some wrong impression and continued to pursue his remedy there under some mistaken notion of law. The revisionist has, therefore, failed to give any sufficient cause for explaining the delay and the revision is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. 6. From Section 397 Cr.P.C. it is evident that the revision can be filed either before the High Court or the Sessions Judge. Sub- section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. further provides that if an application under this Section has been made, by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the either of them. In Mohammad Khan Hanif Khan v. Smt. Shamim Begum and others, 1976 (13) ACC 245 (All) the Magistrate directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife. The husband filed a revision before the Session Judge but got it dismissed as not pressed. He then filed a revision before the High Court. It was held that further revision by the husband before the High Court was not maintainable. The rule of law enunciated in this case applies with full force to the present case. Here also the revisionist got his revision filed before the Sessions Judge dismissed as not pressed. He then filed the second revision before the High Court. Thus, in view of Section 397 (3) of the Cr.P.C. this revision petition does not appear maintainable. 7. In view of what has been observed above the revision is dismissed. The stay order dated 9.11.83 is vacated.